间接回指的认知释义过程分析
|
摘要
回指是语篇连贯的一种重要的手段。间接回指作为回指中的一种特殊现象近几十年来成为语言学家,认知语言学家,人工智能学家等研究的对象。间接回指是指照应成分与先行成分没有明确的互指关系,在话语理解过程中需要借助于听者或读者的百科知识,并藉以适当的认知机制和语用推理才能建立前后话语之间的关联性。间接回指还可以再细分为:常规间接回指和非常规间接回指。常规关系是语篇生成和理解过程中非常重要的一个因素。它指的是回指项与先行项之间的一种抽象的语义关联,是人们或至少是一个文化圈的人所公认的信息。常规关联越紧密,回指项与先行项之间的语义关联越容易形成,所需的认知努力也就越少。非常规关系是指超出常规认知思维的一种语义联系,而且根据语境的不同,非常规关系中回指项与先行项之间的联系差别很大,但是其在自然的话语生成过程中也是符合思维逻辑的,是一种合法的语言现象。
通过运用框架理论来分析间接回指,我们可以得知,在遇到照应短语之前,照应短语的指称对象就已经因为先行项引入的概念以半激活状态呈现在听话人的大脑中,那么,当照应语在后续话语中出现时,其所激活的概念会填充处于半激活状态的指称对象所对应的槽位,照应问题在读者或听者的大脑中就可以顺其自然地迅速自动解决。框架理论对间接照应有一定的解释力,尤其是对常规关系的间接回指能够给予充分的解释,但它同时也存在一定的局限性,在解释非常规间接回指时就失去了其应有的效力。
情景模型是一种对语言所描述的情景或事态在片断记忆中或工作记忆中所实时构建的一系列动态的心理表征。这种动态的心理表征能够用来很好地解释听话人和读者理解语篇的心理过程,因为在非常规间接回指的释义过程中,由于先行项和回指项之间无法通过常识建立语义关联,在读者或听者的心理表征中,会出现两种不同的理解趋势:抛弃在先行项出现时,因综合所有语言信息输入而建立的组合模型,从当前信息开始建立全新的心理模型;或者是通过信息前景化等因素,使得包含回指语的小句中的突显信息与包含先行项的小句中的某个信息之间建立语义关联,随之化解非常规关系中出现的指称突兀问题,顺利完成回指的释义。
通过运用以上认知语言学理论,本文作者成功地揭示了间接回指的释义过程,对未来的研究方向提出了自己的建议,并从中受到了一些启发,希望能够运用于英语的教学和学习当中。
The research on anaphora has a long tradition and anaphora has been investigated from various perspectives within linguistics and psychology. Although many important insights and observations have come out of this work, there is yet until now no unified views on the interpretation of indirect anaphora which is a special branch of the anaphora system. Different from direct anaphora, the correct understanding of indirect anaphora encounters many difficulties and variables since there is no explicit anaphoric relation between the referring expression and its antecedent. Indirect anaphora can be divided, according to syntactical features, into nominal indirect anaphora, demonstrative indirect anaphora, and pronoun indirect anaphora. According to the degree of stereotypicality, the indirect anaphora can also be grouped into stereotypical and non-stereotypical ones.
This paper aims to take a cognitive point of view to interpret the mental process of indirect anaphora , in which indirect anaphora is considered to refer to a psychologically prominent entity out of the surface level of language. Under this viewpoint, this paper will develop a cognitive exploration of indirect anaphora on the basis of frame theory put forward by Minsky and situation models (van Dijk & Kintsch). The frame represents a concept activated by a certain word or situation and it does not stand for a concrete entity but the abstraction of the categorical entity. The activation of frame can not actually fully activate slots but bring them to a semi-activation status. Therefore, we can assume that the appearance of the antecedent activates a prototypical frame, including numbers of related slots under semi-activation, when the referring expression in the following discourse indicates that a known situation is activated, and then this situation and the semi-activated slot by the antecedent form a kind of mapping. As a result, the corresponding slot gets instantiated and is thus fully activated. In this way, the stereotypical indirect anaphora can be naturally anchored.
The frame theory can fully account for the stereotypical indirect anaphora. However, in the face of non-stereotypical indirect anaphora, the frame theory loses its due force for the fact that it deals with language from a static perspective. But non-stereotypical indirect anaphora can still be justifiably identified once the concepts of situation models and mental spaces are brought into play.
The situation model is the mental representation of the situation or state being described through language form. It is the mental representation established in the working memory; and has dynamic, multiple, specific and predicting characteristics. The basic notion of mental spaces is that as the mental spaces are set up, they are structured and linked under pressure from grammar, context and culture. Mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk for purposes of local understanding and action. They are very partial assemblies containing elements, and structured by frames and cognitive models. These conceptual packets are interconnected and can be modified as thought and discourse unfold. In the case of non-stereotypical indirect anaphora, at the time when the referring expression appears, the current model has both the tendencies to update and establish brand new model. The tendency to establish brand new model results from that the referential inconsistency counters the stereotypical relation existing in people’s cognitive structure; the tendency to update the integrated model arises because the definite article“the”before the referring expressions presupposes the uniqueness, identifiability and familiarity of the referent, which will stop the reader or the hearer to totally discard updating sub-model and thus enables the trend of updating sub-model. Then influenced by the foregrounding factors, the final model ends up in an intermediate situation between updating model and establishing totally novel model, achieving successful interpretation.
通过运用框架理论来分析间接回指,我们可以得知,在遇到照应短语之前,照应短语的指称对象就已经因为先行项引入的概念以半激活状态呈现在听话人的大脑中,那么,当照应语在后续话语中出现时,其所激活的概念会填充处于半激活状态的指称对象所对应的槽位,照应问题在读者或听者的大脑中就可以顺其自然地迅速自动解决。框架理论对间接照应有一定的解释力,尤其是对常规关系的间接回指能够给予充分的解释,但它同时也存在一定的局限性,在解释非常规间接回指时就失去了其应有的效力。
情景模型是一种对语言所描述的情景或事态在片断记忆中或工作记忆中所实时构建的一系列动态的心理表征。这种动态的心理表征能够用来很好地解释听话人和读者理解语篇的心理过程,因为在非常规间接回指的释义过程中,由于先行项和回指项之间无法通过常识建立语义关联,在读者或听者的心理表征中,会出现两种不同的理解趋势:抛弃在先行项出现时,因综合所有语言信息输入而建立的组合模型,从当前信息开始建立全新的心理模型;或者是通过信息前景化等因素,使得包含回指语的小句中的突显信息与包含先行项的小句中的某个信息之间建立语义关联,随之化解非常规关系中出现的指称突兀问题,顺利完成回指的释义。
通过运用以上认知语言学理论,本文作者成功地揭示了间接回指的释义过程,对未来的研究方向提出了自己的建议,并从中受到了一些启发,希望能够运用于英语的教学和学习当中。
The research on anaphora has a long tradition and anaphora has been investigated from various perspectives within linguistics and psychology. Although many important insights and observations have come out of this work, there is yet until now no unified views on the interpretation of indirect anaphora which is a special branch of the anaphora system. Different from direct anaphora, the correct understanding of indirect anaphora encounters many difficulties and variables since there is no explicit anaphoric relation between the referring expression and its antecedent. Indirect anaphora can be divided, according to syntactical features, into nominal indirect anaphora, demonstrative indirect anaphora, and pronoun indirect anaphora. According to the degree of stereotypicality, the indirect anaphora can also be grouped into stereotypical and non-stereotypical ones.
This paper aims to take a cognitive point of view to interpret the mental process of indirect anaphora , in which indirect anaphora is considered to refer to a psychologically prominent entity out of the surface level of language. Under this viewpoint, this paper will develop a cognitive exploration of indirect anaphora on the basis of frame theory put forward by Minsky and situation models (van Dijk & Kintsch). The frame represents a concept activated by a certain word or situation and it does not stand for a concrete entity but the abstraction of the categorical entity. The activation of frame can not actually fully activate slots but bring them to a semi-activation status. Therefore, we can assume that the appearance of the antecedent activates a prototypical frame, including numbers of related slots under semi-activation, when the referring expression in the following discourse indicates that a known situation is activated, and then this situation and the semi-activated slot by the antecedent form a kind of mapping. As a result, the corresponding slot gets instantiated and is thus fully activated. In this way, the stereotypical indirect anaphora can be naturally anchored.
The frame theory can fully account for the stereotypical indirect anaphora. However, in the face of non-stereotypical indirect anaphora, the frame theory loses its due force for the fact that it deals with language from a static perspective. But non-stereotypical indirect anaphora can still be justifiably identified once the concepts of situation models and mental spaces are brought into play.
The situation model is the mental representation of the situation or state being described through language form. It is the mental representation established in the working memory; and has dynamic, multiple, specific and predicting characteristics. The basic notion of mental spaces is that as the mental spaces are set up, they are structured and linked under pressure from grammar, context and culture. Mental spaces are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk for purposes of local understanding and action. They are very partial assemblies containing elements, and structured by frames and cognitive models. These conceptual packets are interconnected and can be modified as thought and discourse unfold. In the case of non-stereotypical indirect anaphora, at the time when the referring expression appears, the current model has both the tendencies to update and establish brand new model. The tendency to establish brand new model results from that the referential inconsistency counters the stereotypical relation existing in people’s cognitive structure; the tendency to update the integrated model arises because the definite article“the”before the referring expressions presupposes the uniqueness, identifiability and familiarity of the referent, which will stop the reader or the hearer to totally discard updating sub-model and thus enables the trend of updating sub-model. Then influenced by the foregrounding factors, the final model ends up in an intermediate situation between updating model and establishing totally novel model, achieving successful interpretation.
引文
[1] Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents [M]. London: Routledge.
[2] Brown, G. & Yule, G.1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[3] Bussmann, H G Trauth, K Kazzazi.1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M]. New York: Routledge.
[4] Chafe, W. L. 1976. Discourse, Consciousness and Time [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[5] Charolles, M. 1999. Associative Anaphora and Its Interpretation [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (31):311-326.
[6] Clark, H. & E. Clark. 1977. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[7] Collins, AM. & Loftus, EF. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing [J]. Psychological Review, content.apa.org.
[8] Cornish, F. 1996. Antecedentless Anaphors [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (32).
[9] Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[10] Epstein, R. 1997. The Definite Article, Accessibility, and Construction of Discourse Referent [J]. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. CUP.
[11] Erku, F. & Gundel, J. K. 1987. The Pragmatics of Indirect Anaphors [A]. The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 InternationalPragmatics Conference[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[12] Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Fauconnier, G. & Sweester, E. 1996. Spaces, Words and Grammar [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[14] Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Network [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[15] Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics [A]. In the Linguistic Society of Korea Seoul: Hanshin.
[16] Fox, B. A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] Garrod, S. C. & Sanford, A.J. 1982. The Mental Representation of Discourse in a Focused Memory System: Implications for the Interpretation of Anaphoric Noun Phrases [J] .Journal of Semantics, (16).
[18] Gernsbacher, Morton A 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[19] Gundel, J. K. et al, 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expression in Discourse [J] .Language, (69):274-307.
[20] Gillian, Brown and Geoge, Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [J]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Halliday M A K. & Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English [M].London: Longman.
[22] Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross2linguistic Study [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23] Minsky, M. 1975. A Framework for Knowledge [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
[24] Prince, E.F. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Existential Presupposition in Discourse [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[25] Quillian, MR. 1968. Semantic Information Processing [J]. Boston: MIT Press.
[26] Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman,
[27] Richard et al. 1992. The On-Line Resolution of Pronominal Anaphora [J].Language and Speech, eric.ed.gov.
[28] Sanford, A. J. et al. 1983. Pronouns without Explicit Antecedents [J]. Journal of Semantics, (14).
[29] Sanford, A. & Garrod. S. 1981. Understanding Written Language [M]. Chichester: JohnWiley.
[30] Sidorov, G. 1994. Morphological Analysis of Inflective Languages through Generation [J]. Revista Procesamiento de lenguaje natural, Espa?a, sepln.org.
[31] Sperber, D.&Wilson, D.,1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[32] Yule, G. 1982. Interpreting Anaphora without Identifying Reference [J]. Journal of Semantics, (20).
[33] van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. 1993. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[34] Zribi-Hertz, A. 1992. Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse [J]. Language, (20).
[35] Zwaan, R. Radvansky, G. 1998. Situation models in languagecomprehension and memory [J]. Psychological Bulletin, (123).
[36] 何自然. 语用推理的照应[J]. 福建外语.2000, (1).
[37] 刘礼进. 英语话语中的间接照应[J]. 四川外国语学院学报.2001, (2).
[38] 刘礼进. 可推知照应再考[J]. 外国语. 2004, (5).
[39] 马晶晶. 双先行成分间接回指的语用分析[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报.2004, (3).
[40] 项成东. 间接照应与认知推理[J]. 西安外国语学院学报.2004a, (2).
[41] 项成东.. 间接照应与语篇理解[J]. 四川外国语学院学报.2004b, (3).
[42] 熊学亮. 认知语言学概论[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.1999, (3).
[43] 许余龙. 语篇回指的认知语言学探索[J]. 外国语. 2002, (1).
[44] 王军. 联想回指现象琐议[J]. 西安外国语学院学报. 2003a, (1).
[45] 王军. 间接回指的确认与语义网络激活扩散[J]. 外语学刊.2003b, (4).
[46] 王军. 论间接回指的释义基础[J]. 外语教学. 2003c, (6).
[47] 王艳. 非常规间接回指的情景模型分析[J]. 文教群论. 2007, (1).
[48] 文旭. 搭桥参照以图景为基础的解释方法[J]. 外语学刊.2004, (4).
[2] Brown, G. & Yule, G.1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[3] Bussmann, H G Trauth, K Kazzazi.1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M]. New York: Routledge.
[4] Chafe, W. L. 1976. Discourse, Consciousness and Time [M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[5] Charolles, M. 1999. Associative Anaphora and Its Interpretation [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (31):311-326.
[6] Clark, H. & E. Clark. 1977. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[7] Collins, AM. & Loftus, EF. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing [J]. Psychological Review, content.apa.org.
[8] Cornish, F. 1996. Antecedentless Anaphors [J]. Journal of Linguistics, (32).
[9] Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[10] Epstein, R. 1997. The Definite Article, Accessibility, and Construction of Discourse Referent [J]. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. CUP.
[11] Erku, F. & Gundel, J. K. 1987. The Pragmatics of Indirect Anaphors [A]. The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 InternationalPragmatics Conference[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[12] Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Fauconnier, G. & Sweester, E. 1996. Spaces, Words and Grammar [M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[14] Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 1998. Conceptual Integration Network [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[15] Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics [A]. In the Linguistic Society of Korea Seoul: Hanshin.
[16] Fox, B. A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] Garrod, S. C. & Sanford, A.J. 1982. The Mental Representation of Discourse in a Focused Memory System: Implications for the Interpretation of Anaphoric Noun Phrases [J] .Journal of Semantics, (16).
[18] Gernsbacher, Morton A 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[19] Gundel, J. K. et al, 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expression in Discourse [J] .Language, (69):274-307.
[20] Gillian, Brown and Geoge, Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [J]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Halliday M A K. & Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English [M].London: Longman.
[22] Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross2linguistic Study [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23] Minsky, M. 1975. A Framework for Knowledge [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
[24] Prince, E.F. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Existential Presupposition in Discourse [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[25] Quillian, MR. 1968. Semantic Information Processing [J]. Boston: MIT Press.
[26] Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language [M]. London: Longman,
[27] Richard et al. 1992. The On-Line Resolution of Pronominal Anaphora [J].Language and Speech, eric.ed.gov.
[28] Sanford, A. J. et al. 1983. Pronouns without Explicit Antecedents [J]. Journal of Semantics, (14).
[29] Sanford, A. & Garrod. S. 1981. Understanding Written Language [M]. Chichester: JohnWiley.
[30] Sidorov, G. 1994. Morphological Analysis of Inflective Languages through Generation [J]. Revista Procesamiento de lenguaje natural, Espa?a, sepln.org.
[31] Sperber, D.&Wilson, D.,1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[32] Yule, G. 1982. Interpreting Anaphora without Identifying Reference [J]. Journal of Semantics, (20).
[33] van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. 1993. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension [M]. New York: Academic Press.
[34] Zribi-Hertz, A. 1992. Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse [J]. Language, (20).
[35] Zwaan, R. Radvansky, G. 1998. Situation models in languagecomprehension and memory [J]. Psychological Bulletin, (123).
[36] 何自然. 语用推理的照应[J]. 福建外语.2000, (1).
[37] 刘礼进. 英语话语中的间接照应[J]. 四川外国语学院学报.2001, (2).
[38] 刘礼进. 可推知照应再考[J]. 外国语. 2004, (5).
[39] 马晶晶. 双先行成分间接回指的语用分析[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报.2004, (3).
[40] 项成东. 间接照应与认知推理[J]. 西安外国语学院学报.2004a, (2).
[41] 项成东.. 间接照应与语篇理解[J]. 四川外国语学院学报.2004b, (3).
[42] 熊学亮. 认知语言学概论[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.1999, (3).
[43] 许余龙. 语篇回指的认知语言学探索[J]. 外国语. 2002, (1).
[44] 王军. 联想回指现象琐议[J]. 西安外国语学院学报. 2003a, (1).
[45] 王军. 间接回指的确认与语义网络激活扩散[J]. 外语学刊.2003b, (4).
[46] 王军. 论间接回指的释义基础[J]. 外语教学. 2003c, (6).
[47] 王艳. 非常规间接回指的情景模型分析[J]. 文教群论. 2007, (1).
[48] 文旭. 搭桥参照以图景为基础的解释方法[J]. 外语学刊.2004, (4).